Ever notice how many of the really high-profile climate scolds, the ones who like to wag their fingers at us regular folks about our carbon emissions causing the oceans to rise catastrophically, live right on the ocean's edge? Take the Obamas, for instance; their $12 million Martha's Vineyard estate is about three inches above high tide line, and yet they are still firmly in the camp of the climate scolds.
It's tempting to ask, "Do they think we're stupid?" But I think we all know the answer to that.
Here's the thing: Sea levels, yes, are monitored. But local sea levels can vary for many reasons, most of them geological. Continental shelves subside or are pushed up; silt flows into the sea via rivers, and sand deposition from ocean currents can change local sea levels. We can measure sea levels, but we can't point to every instance of a rise and shout, "See! Climate Change!"
Especially now when sea levels are falling in other locales.
Extracting some data from another new study on ocean levels over time, this time being since the last major glaciation, gives us yet another arrow in our quiver of climate-debunking. Watts Up With That's Vijay Jayaraj has details.
It’s all too predictable: A jet-setting celebrity or politician wades ceremoniously into hip-deep surf for a carefully choreographed photo op, while proclaiming that human-driven sea-level rise will soon swallow an island nation. Of course, the water is deeper than the video’s pseudoscience, which is as shallow as the theatrics.
The scientific truth is simple: Sea levels are rising, but the rate of rise has not accelerated. A new peer-reviewed study confirms what many other studies have already shown – that the steady rise of oceans is a centuries-long process, not a runaway crisis triggered by modern emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
For the past 12,000 years, during our current warm epoch known as the Holocene, sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically.
Here's the chart:
— Ward Clark (@TheGreatLander) September 25, 2025
Now, to be fair, methods have changed. To study sea levels before modern monitoring methods, we rely on sediment and examination of ancient time lines to determine average sea levels, and there's a margin for error, as there is for anything. That's how science works. But we do know beyond any doubt that 20-22 thousand years ago, the North American continent and most of Europe and northern Asia were covered in mile-thick ice sheets, that one could walk from Siberia to Alaska and from France to Britain, and yes, when those glaciers melted, the ocean levels rose. But it's the more recent and more accurate monitoring that lends itself to examination now.
Read More: Liberal Seattle Paper Cries About Climate Change Causing Flooding. They're Wrong.
Wait, What? Climate Scientist Says Sea Level Rising at Nowhere Near the Level They Claim
That monitoring doesn't give us any reason for panic.
“There is no good, sufficient or convincing evidence that global sea level rise is accelerating –there is only hypothesis and speculation. Computation is not evidence and unless the results can be practically viewed and measured in the physical world, such results must not be presented as such,” notes Kip Hansen, researcher and former U.S. Coast Guard captain.
While activists speak of “global sea-level rise,” the ocean’s surface does not behave like water in a bathtub. Regional currents, land movements, and local hydrology all influence relative sea level. This is why local tide gauge data is important. As Hansen warns, “Only actually measured, validated raw data can be trusted. … You have to understand exactly what’s been measured and how.”
And the recent data is not at all alarming - but the consequences of what the scolds would have us do is very alarming, translating into billions of dollars in spending for no good reason.
A new 2025 study provides confirmation. Published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, the study systematically dismantles the narrative of accelerating sea-level rise. It analyzed empirically derived long-term rates from datasets of sufficient length – at least 60 years – and incorporated long-term tide signals from suitable locations.
The startling conclusion: Approximately 95% of monitoring locations show no statistically significant acceleration of sea-level rise. It was found that the steady rate of sea-level rise – averaging around 1 to 2 millimeters per year globally – mirrors patterns observed over the past 150 years.
150 years ago, we might note, was during the height of the Industrial Revolution. The standard fuel, then, for home heating, cooking, and transportation? Coal. Our methods today are much cleaner.
The study suggests that projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which often predicts rates as high as 3 to 4 millimeters per year by 2100, overestimate the annual rise by approximately 2 millimeters.
This discrepancy is not trivial. It translates into billions of dollars in misguided infrastructure investments and adaptation policies, which assume a far worse scenario than what the data support. Because we now know that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise measured locally.
Measured locally. That's the key. The climate scolds are lecturing us, once again, after taking local data and extrapolating it to the global level. Remember the UK Met Office fraud? Same thing.
Yes, once again, we see that the methods of the climate scolds are pure horse squeeze. Barack and Michelle Obama clearly aren't worried about the sea rising and flooding out their Martha's Vineyard estate, nor their Hawaii mansion, or they wouldn't have bought their vast homes so near the water. We shouldn't worry either. The ocean, like the global climate, is vast beyond our comprehension, but what we know of it so far, the actual measurements taken by reputable researchers, gives us little reason for concern.
